This sequence of four courses will propose a multi-disciplinary approach to the study of Chinese cultural history conceived of as a succession of modes of rationality (philosophical, bureaucratic, and economic). The focus will be on the moments of paradigm shift from one mode of rationality to another. For each of these moments, cultural facts and artifacts—thought, literature, ritual—will be examined in relationship to changing social, political, and economic systems.
The first two courses will cover the periods of the Warring States (481-256 BCE) and the Period of Division (220-589 CE), with a brief excursion into the Han (206 BCE-220 CE). The Warring States laid the social and cultural foundations for the emergence of the imperial mode of rationality; the Period of Division saw the Buddhist “conquest” of China and the emergence of a rationality defined by the opposition of the Three Teachings to shamanism, that is, of a clear contrast between elite and popular culture.
The third and fourth courses will focus on the emergence of modern China in the Song-Yuan (960-1368) and of today’s China 1850 to the present. We will see how the modern attack on religion, redefined as "superstition", led not only to religious reform movements but also to a society in which science and the nation became the primary value systems promoted by the state.
The courses are listed below:
A Critical Cultural History of China - Early China I: Intellectual Change in the Warring States and Han (481 BCE-220 CE)
A Critical Cultural History of China - Early China II: Religious Transformation in the Period of Division (220-589 CE)
A Critical Cultural History of China - Modern China I: Religion and Thought in the Song, Jin, and Yuan (960-1368)
A Critical Cultural History of China - Modern China II: Structuring Values (1850-2015)

Рецензии

Filled StarFilled StarFilled StarFilled StarHalf Faded Star

4.5 (оценок: 8)

5 stars

6 ratings

4 stars

1 ratings

2 stars

1 ratings

Из урока

Module 14 State Religion

This module is about how the state, relying on the Confucian classics, controlled religion and also supported it; how the Northern Song dynasty heavily favoured Daoism, and how this allowed the deification of its ancestors not only but even of the ruling emperor.

Преподаватели

Prof. John Lagerwey

Research Professor

Текст видео

Okay, our first stop on the road through the Song, through the Yuan will be state religion and our guide will be Patricia Ebrey's chapter called "Song Government Policy" in this volume of <i>Modern Chinese Religion Part I</i>. And we can start by talking about the same subject where we ended our previous session, namely the Chinese Church-State. I'll begin by quoting Patricia Ebrey's text: "The Song state claimed the authority to approve, regulate, codify, and control all religious activity in the realm, including the institutionalized religions of Buddhism and Daoism. It limited the number of ordained Buddhist monks and Daoist priests through a system of ordination certificates that could be bought and sold. It approved (of) the abbots for the public Buddhist monasteries." That is to say the Buddhist monasteries which are supported by the state. "It issued name plaques for registered Buddhist and Daoist temples. It kept a register of shrines and granted titles to their principal deities, which included mountains, streams, dragons, and local gods that had once been human men or women. Policy makers wanted to ensure that the government had final say on who became religious professionals and what sorts of worship activities they engaged in." "The state could fund the construction of huge temple complexes, endow favored temples with extensive land holdings, arrange for the printing of entire canons, and outlaw and suppress sects or teachings judged heterodox." So here we see the state very clearly taking total control at least in appearance of the entire religious scene. The emperor himself must be looked at as a kind of chief priest. Again I quote Ebrey: "In Song times, the government as represented by the emperor, his surrogates, and the highest officials in each locality" throughout the entire empire down to the level of the county "had priestly roles to play." "The king's position both enabled and obligated him to communicate with the highest gods and request their blessings for his people." The state defined not only orthodoxy but also orthopraxy, that is to say orthodox practice by issuing a massive manual of approved ritual that we'll be talking more about at the end of this session. So in the state policy, with regard to religion, who and what were stigmatized? First of all, "prognosticatory texts," that is texts that predicted the future —always a very sensitive thing— "including astrological charts were specifically singled out as dangerous." A common theme through 2000 years of Chinese imperial history. I'm still quoting from Ebrey: "Those who are neither Buddhists nor Daoists but who gather as a scripture group, congregate in large numbers, and practice religious ways shall be beaten one hundred strokes." Everyone who engages in scripture groups in concrete? Probably not, but what we see here is a very clear attempt to control not just the institutionalized religions but the lay groups that will be increasingly important, especially the Buddhist lay groups that we already talked about. Another edict: "From now on, ordinary people are not allowed to gather money and goods to set up a ritual space for a ceremony of gratitude every time there is a good harvest." So this is the famous <i>chunqi qiubao</i> 春祈秋報 so that in the spring time you pray for good harvest and then when you have the good harvest in the fall you do the sacrifice of thanksgiving. So that's what it's talking about. People are not allowed to gather money and goods to set up a ritual space for ceremony of gratitude for the good harvest." A memorial claims that "women who accepted Manichaeism" —<i>Monijiao</i> 摩尼教 as it's called in Chinese had come into China and led to in fact a famous rebellion towards the end of the Northern Song— but anyway, "Claims that women who accepted Manichaeism 'do not obey their fathers or husbands but only the devils.' The sons they give birth to do not bow to their parents but rather to the king of the demons." So you can see what is being attacked here is that a supreme power referred to here as the king of demons —of course they're demonizing the Manichaeans— infringe basic rules of Confucian propriety and patriarchal rules. That is to say do not bow down to their parents but to the king of demons. So that gives a brief glimpse of who was stigmatized. Who was supported? State support of Chan 禪 in the Song made it the leading form of Buddhism. By lending the "imperial imprimatur" to the <i>Jingde chuandenglu</i> 景德傳燈錄— which is literally <i>Record of the transmission of the lamp of the Jingde reign period</i>, and it's the Jingde reign period that here is important— Zhenzong, the third emperor, who reigned from 997 to 1022, gave it unique official status. I quote Ebrey: "In the view of Albert Welter, the use of the reign name [Jingde] in the title of this work was a form of government support for Chan, admitting it to the cultural mainstream. Also important here is that this book was admitted to the Buddhist canon." Recall here what we saw when we we're looking at medieval China that the definition of the canons of the Three Teachings and even their production and reproduction was completely controlled by the state. The next emperor, Renzong, who reigned from 1022 to 1063, confirmed this support of Chan by writing a preface for the <i>Expanded lamp record of the Tiansheng reign eriod</i> 天聖廣燈錄. So another reign period, but also put into the title of the book. This particular text dates to 1036. As a result, Chan monasteries enjoyed unique access to state recognition and financialsupport, something that only later on was accorded to Tiantai and Vinaya monasteries as well.